Aim The present study comprehensively investigated the relationship between diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and sarcopenia by identifying all eligible studies and summarizing their results. Methods Records were identified through MEDLINE and EMBASE database searching from inception to March 9, 2022. We included all cross‐sectional studies investigating the association between DPN and sarcopenia among patients with diabetes. Data from eligible studies, including point estimates and standard errors, were pooled together using the generic inverse variance method. Results Of 2989 retrieved articles, five studies met the inclusion criteria and were allowed for meta‐analysis. The pooled analysis found a significant association between DPN and sarcopenia with the pooled odds ratio of 1.62 (95% confidence interval: 1.30–2.02; I2 0%). The funnel plot was relatively symmetric and was not suggestive of the presence of publication bias. Conclusions The current study discovered a significant association between DPN and sarcopenia in patients with diabetes. However, given summarized data from cross‐sectional studies, the temporality between DPN and sarcopenia could not be established. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2022; 22: 785–789.

Introduction/Aims Previous studies have shown inconsistent data on the relationship between statin use and polyneuropathy (PN). The current systematic review and meta‐analyses were conducted to comprehensively investigate the risk of incident PN among statin‐users compared with non‐users by identifying all available studies and summarizing their results. Methods A systematic review was conducted from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to October 31, 2020. We included cohort and case–control studies that compared the risk of incident PN between statin‐users and non‐users. Point estimates and standard errors from eligible studies were pooled together using the generic inverse variance method. Results Of 4968 retrieved articles, 6 studies in non‐diabetic populations and 2 studies in diabetic populations fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two meta‐analyses were performed. The pooled analyses did not find a statistically significant association between the use of statins and risk of incident PN with the pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.76; I2 74%) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.56–1.21; I2 80%) in non‐diabetic and diabetic groups respectively. Discussion No significant association between the use of statins and the risk of PN was observed in this systematic review and these two meta‐analyses. However, there was a high degree of heterogeneity of the meta‐analyses.